Home
Purpose; Academic and Clinical Studies

Background
History of this project

The Archive
101 corroborated cases of recovered memory

Response to Critics
Dr. August Piper (1999)
Dr. Richard McNally (2003)

FAQs

Other Scholarly Resources
Bibliographies, links
to websites by four
doctoral-level
psychologists

Supportive Information
For those with personal
questions & concerns
about sexual abuse &
those interested in
political & social
responses to sexual
abuse

The Archive > 43 Cases from Legal Proceedings

back to D.M.M vs. Dr. Pilo

Criticism
The disciplinary hearing proves nothing, critics have claimed, because Dr. Pilo "admitted no wrongdoing" and merely "gave up" his license to practice. A letter by Harold Merskey, D.M., Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the University of Western Ontario, and Advisory Board Member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, has also been circulated over the Internet in Dr. Pilo's defense. According to Merskey:

"The doctor was advised by his lawyers that with so many women joining to accuse him he had no chance of escaping a conviction, and the doctor--still protesting his innocence--agreed after consulting another lawyer to make a plea bargain so that he would receive no penalty other than suspension from practice, when his practice was in any case winding down."

A contact person for the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) in Canada has spread the same claim around the Internet, including through the feedback mechanism for this Web site. "Rather then using court documents," this person complained, the abstract in this Web site about the D.M.M. case relies on Katy Butler's article in the Family Therapy Networker. "A most reliable source no doubt?" this man asks, implying, as have others associated with the FMSF, that Ms. Butler is somehow unreliable.

Response
The Findings of Fact and Penalty in the legal proceedings speak for themselves. Katy Butler's article is absolutely accurate, as demonstrated by the following legal documents:
• The "Summary of Cases" of the Discipline Committee's handling of the complaints against Dr. Pilo. Note (1) that Dr. Pilo's license was revoked (not relinquished), and (2) that the Board went out of its way to express moral outrage at the doctor's "abhorrent and repugnant" behavior.

* The full text of the Complaint and the Findings of Fact. Pay particular attention to the Findings of Fact, wherein Dr. Pilo admitted the facts that his apologists now deny.

back to top | back to D.M.M vs. Dr. Pilo